Literature DB >> 33723287

Analysis of risk factors for determining the need for prostate biopsy in patients with negative MRI.

Linghui Liang1, Feng Qi1, Yifei Cheng1, Lei Zhang1, Dongliang Cao1, Gong Cheng2, Lixin Hua3.   

Abstract

To analyze the clinical characteristics of patients with negative biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) who didn't need prostate biopsies (PBs). A total of 1,012 male patients who underwent PBs in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from March 2018 to November 2019, of 225 had prebiopsy negative bpMRI (defined as Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS 2.1) score less than 3). The detection efficiency of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) was assessed according to age, digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate volume (PV) on bpMRI, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA density (PSAD). The definition of CSPCa for Gleason score > 6. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to identify predictive factors of absent CSPCa on PBs. Moreover, absent CSPCa contained clinically insignificant prostate cancer (CIPCa) and benign result. The detection rates of present prostate cancer (PCa) and CSPCa were 27.11% and 16.44%, respectively. Patients who were diagnosed as CSPCa had an older age (P < 0.001), suspicious DRE (P < 0.001), a smaller PV (P < 0.001), higher PSA value (P = 0.008) and higher PSAD (P < 0.001) compared to the CIPCa group and benign result group. PSAD < 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 (P = 0.004) and suspicious DRE (P < 0.001) were independent predictors of absent CSPCa on BPs. The negative forecast value of bpMRI for BP detection of CSPCa increased with decreasing PSAD, mainly in patients with naive PB (P < 0.001) but not in prior negative PB patients. 25.33% of the men had the combination of negative bpMRI, PSAD < 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 and PB naive, and none had CSPCa on repeat PBs. The incidence of PB was determined, CSPCa was 1.59%, 0% and 16.67% in patients with negative bpMRI and PSAD < 0.15 ng/ml/cm3, patients with negative bpMRI, PSAD < 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 and biopsy naive and patients with negative bpMRI, PSAD < 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 and prior negative PB, separately. We found that a part of patients with negative bpMRI, a younger age, no suspicious DRE and PSAD < 0.15 ng/ml/cm3 may securely avoid PBs. Conversely PB should be considered in patients regardless of negative bpMRI, especially who with a greater age, obviously suspicious DRE, significantly increased PSA value, a significantly small PV on MRI and PSAD > 0.15 ng/ml/cm3.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33723287     DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83802-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  23 in total

1.  Financial implications of biparametric prostate MRI.

Authors:  Kristin K Porter; Alex King; Samuel J Galgano; Rachael L Sherrer; Jennifer B Gordetsky; Soroush Rais-Bahrami
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 5.554

2.  Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Luke A Ginocchio; Daniel Cornfeld; Adam T Froemming; Rajan T Gupta; Baris Turkbey; Antonio C Westphalen; James S Babb; Daniel J Margolis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2.

Authors:  Jeffrey C Weinreb; Jelle O Barentsz; Peter L Choyke; Francois Cornud; Masoom A Haider; Katarzyna J Macura; Daniel Margolis; Mitchell D Schnall; Faina Shtern; Clare M Tempany; Harriet C Thoeny; Sadna Verma
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Pathological findings and prostate specific antigen outcomes after radical prostatectomy in men eligible for active surveillance--does the risk of misclassification vary according to biopsy criteria?

Authors:  Guillaume Ploussard; Laurent Salomon; Evanguelos Xylinas; Yves Allory; Dimitri Vordos; Andras Hoznek; Claude-Clément Abbou; Alexandre de la Taille
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12-14       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System.

Authors:  Jonathan I Epstein; Lars Egevad; Mahul B Amin; Brett Delahunt; John R Srigley; Peter A Humphrey
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 6.394

6.  EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent.

Authors:  Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2016-08-25       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Predictive value of negative 3T multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate on 12-core biopsy results.

Authors:  James S Wysock; Neil Mendhiratta; Fabio Zattoni; Xiaosong Meng; Marc Bjurlin; William C Huang; Herbert Lepor; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Samir S Taneja
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 5.588

8.  Effectiveness of Bi-Parametric MR/US Fusion Biopsy for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Prostate Biopsy Naïve Men.

Authors:  Young Joo Kim; Jung Sik Huh; Kyung Kgi Park
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 2.759

9.  The Value of Prostate-specific Antigen Density for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System 3 Lesions on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Strategy to Avoid Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies.

Authors:  Magdalena Görtz; Jan Philipp Radtke; Gencay Hatiboglu; Viktoria Schütz; Georgi Tosev; Maximilian Güttlein; Jonas Leichsenring; Albrecht Stenzinger; David Bonekamp; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Markus Hohenfellner; Joanne Nyaboe Nyarangi-Dix
Journal:  Eur Urol Focus       Date:  2019-12-12

10.  Which Patients with Negative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Can Safely Avoid Biopsy for Prostate Cancer?

Authors:  Masakatsu Oishi; Toshitaka Shin; Chisato Ohe; Nima Nassiri; Suzanne L Palmer; Manju Aron; Akbar N Ashrafi; Giovanni E Cacciamani; Frank Chen; Vinay Duddalwar; Mariana C Stern; Osamu Ukimura; Inderbir S Gill; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 7.600

View more
  1 in total

1.  Urine Exosomal AMACR Is a Novel Biomarker for Prostate Cancer Detection at Initial Biopsy.

Authors:  Xin Jin; Jin Ji; Decao Niu; Yuchen Yang; Shuchun Tao; Lilin Wan; Bin Xu; Shuqiu Chen; Fubo Wang; Ming Chen
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 5.738

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.